Comedian and social commentator Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the 2025 amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, specifically the provision empowering the Government to block social media content via the Sahyog portal without prior judicial oversight. The petition asserts that the amendment, which took effect on January 1, 2025, confers virtually unfettered power on the executive to order removal or blocking of user content hosted on intermediaries including social media platforms, and that such powers lack adequate safeguards against arbitrary exercise, thereby infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Kamra’s plea contends that the amended rules enable content takedown without affording users any real opportunity to be heard before deletion or blocking, and that reliance on the Sahyog portal mechanism effectively circumvents judicial scrutiny. He argues that the absence of clear standards, timelines and procedural fairness in the content blocking process creates a significant risk of disproportionate or capricious use of state power to stifle dissenting or critical views. The petition highlights that intermediaries, under the rules, are required to comply with blocking directions issued through the centralised Sahyog portal within specified but brief timelines, failing which they face penalties including financial sanctions or suspension of services. According to the challenge, this regime shifts the balance of power too heavily in favour of the state at the expense of free expression and intermediary rights.
The amended rules retain a “grievance redressal” and “due diligence” framework that intermediaries must follow, and empower the Government to issue blocking orders when content is alleged to violate any statutory provision, including broad and vaguely framed grounds such as “public order” or “sovereignty and integrity of India.” Kamra’s petition asserts that these terms are susceptible to expansive interpretation and may be misused to target political speech, satire, criticism or artistic expression that does not pose any concrete threat. The challenge further submits that the blocking mechanism lacks procedural safeguards such as prior notice to the content author, an opportunity for representation, and independent review before action is taken, thus undermining principles of natural justice.
In support of his arguments, the petition invokes constitutional jurisprudence emphasising that restrictions on speech must be reasonable, proportionate and subject to meaningful oversight. Kamra’s counsel contended that the amended Rules are neither precise nor narrowly tailored to legitimate state interests, and that their broad sweep can lead to content suppression without adequate cause. The petitioner also pressed that the Sahyog portal’s centralised design places intermediaries in a position where compliance with state directions becomes compulsory irrespective of contextual merit, burdening platforms with legal liabilities for non-compliance.
The Government, through its counsel, opposed the petition and defended the amendment as a necessary measure to address evolving challenges in digital communication, including unlawful content that may threaten public order, incite violence, or undermine national security. It submitted that the amendment was a considered response to technological developments and trends in social media misuse, and that intermediaries have adequate internal grievance mechanisms and appellate processes to contest blocking directions. The State argued that the rules provide for an independent oversight mechanism within the executive branch and that courts remain available to review actions taken under the rules, preserving safeguards against arbitrary exercise.
During initial hearings, the High Court grappled with the competing imperatives of regulating digital platforms to curb unlawful content and protecting constitutional freedoms in the online sphere. The court examined the statutory text, the nature of the amendments, and submissions concerning the scope and impact of the Sahyog portal regime. Kamra’s counsel emphasised that the petition raises profound constitutional questions about the modern interface between state authority and digital speech, and sought interim relief to restrain the Government from issuing further blocking directions under the problematic provisions pending final adjudication.
The High Court reserved its orders after hearing both sides and indicated it would consider framing appropriate questions for detailed hearing. The legal challenge spotlights ongoing debates about intermediary liability, platform governance, and state power in the regulation of digital expression. Kamra’s petition, by directly attacking the validity of the 2025 IT Rules amendment, seeks judicial intervention to ensure that safeguards for freedom of speech are not diluted in the regulatory zeal to control social media content. The case is poised to test the boundaries of executive authority, intermediary obligations, and constitutional protections in the digital age.
Case Title: Petition challenging constitutional validity of Sahyog portal content blocking provisions in the amended IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2025
Court: Bombay High Court
Relief Sought: Declaration of unconstitutionality of the challenged provisions; interim stay on blocking orders issued under the amended rules.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.